Understanding Fixtures: Chattels and Real Property, Study notes of Law

Download Understanding Fixtures: Chattels and Real Property and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

• Law of Real Property
  • 2018-
    • Lecture

Fixtures

• LEARNING OBJECTIVES
• By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:-
  • Define the terms “chattel” and “fixture”.
  • Explain the significance of the maxim “ quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit ”.
  • Define and explain what is meant by “tenants’ fixtures”.
  • Explain and critically discuss the tests for determining whether an object is a fixture.
  • Apply the tests for determining whether an object is a fixture.
  • Apply the tests for determining whether a fixture can be removed.

• Picture this: you as student rent a room in

West Terrace, or move into one of the

dorm rooms on campus. Your parents (or

significant other) arrive and decide that it

is not good enough for you. Before the

week is out, they have installed built-in

shelves, carpets, curtains, security bars,

and chandeliers. When you move out, are

you entitled to take all these things with

you?

Defining fixtures

• Land = anything attached or affixed to the

land. This includes houses and buildings.

• Chattels = objects which are not attached

to the land in any way and may be

removed by their owner.

• Fixture = a chattel which has become so

merged with land so as to become part of

it.

Chattel or fixture?

• It is not always easy to determine whether an object is a fixture.
• Per Blackburn J. in Holland v. Hodgson (1872) L.R. 7 C.P. 328, 335: “It is very difficult if not impossible to say with precision what constitutes an annexation for this purpose (of distinguishing what is a chattel or fixture on land).”

Chattel or fixture?

• It depends on the facts of each case: Leigh v Taylor.
• It depends on the intention of the annexor.
• Intention is considered objectively.
• Two major tests emerged over time to determine intention:

1. The degree (mode) of annexation
2. The object (purpose) of annexation

Chattel or fixture?

The nature of annexation test:

• If an object is resting on its own weight, it

is presumed to be a chattel unless there is

evidence of a contrary intention.

Chattel or fixture?

The test involves considering:

A. the mode and structure of the annexation ( Holland v Hodgson).

B. would the removal of the object damage the building or land to which it is attached ( Berkeley v Poulett).

C. whether the removal would destroy or damage the attached object ( H. E. Dibble Ltd. v. Moore).

There are two situations where the right to

remove arises

• Where the chattel is affixed for its more

convenient use as a chattel rather than for

the permanent improvement of the land

or building: Cheshire and Burn, Modern

Law of Real Property (16th ed.), p. 152.

• Where the chattel owner is a tenant (life or

lease) and the chattel is a tenant’s fixture ,

attached for certain purposes.

• For decorative domestic use, e.g., bells
• For trade or industrial use, e.g., stills, vats, shrubs planted by market gardener, and the fittings of a store or pub.
• Agricultural use (this is by statute only).

What happens if a landowner Lulu dies, leaving all her Real Property to Ricky and all her Personal Property to Peter? Peter can remove anything from the house that isn’t nailed down. He cannot take anything that is nailed down unless it falls into exception #1, i.e., affixed for the purpose of enjoying the chattel. So he can remove pictures and curtains, but not built-in shelves, security bars, etc. In this case, exception #2 does not apply since the chattel owner (Lulu) was not a tenant.

• Similarly, where a vendor is selling land, it is customary that all his fixtures are sold with the property. He does not have the right to remove them unless they fall into exception #1.

• The case Botham v TSB Bank [1997] 73 P&CR D discussed the tests for removal of chattel.
• In that case, the mortgagee bank sold the property to recover the funds owed to them. There was still a shortfall. The mortgagor argued that he should be given credit for certain items which could have been sold separately. The Court went through the list and decided that the following were fixtures: bathroom fittings such as marble panes, soap dishes, towel and toilet paper holders and the kitchen sink. The Court also said, obiter, that carpet tiles which were stuck down would have been fixtures. However, the curtains, carpets, drapes, blinds, kitchen appliances and light fittings such as chandeliers and lamp shades were found not to be fixtures.

• Helpful article: http://www.falcon-

chambers.com/images/uploads/articles/

Battles_about_chattels.pdf

Statutory Provisions

• In Guyana and Belize, the Property Acts specify that the quicquid doctrine does not apply in landlord and tenant situations. This means that tenants are entitled to remove anything that they have brought onto the land. However, where the item is a fixture: - The tenant must give the landlord notice of removal. - The tenant can only remove if he has paid all monies owed (including for any damage which comes from the removal) - The landlord is entitled to pay fair compensation and keep the item - The Court’s only jurisdiction is to determine what a fair price would be
• So the statute gives the tenant increased rights on the one hand, but then provides that his property can be acquired whether he likes it or not! Notice that the Act does not define what a fixture is – it still relies on the common law.